Superia for people photography.

Hi, I deceided to check out by myself how superia works with people

photography. It gives higher contrast and perhaps colour saturation

which gives the extra punch to the photos. In lots of posts you say

that one shouldn't use it for people photography but I have to say I

like it!<div></div>

Then use Portra UC 400 or NPC.

 

Superia is disliked because it's an amatuer film, and hence under no standards in terms of consistency or quality. Real photographers don't use random number generators simply because a film is cheap.

 

Use a professional print film that delivers the image characteristics you like.

and a studio shot...<div></div>

Superia 400 is not an ideal portrait film by any means... but if you're on an extremely tight budget, it certainly does a better job than the comparable Kodak product (Max 400).

 

I've never used Superia 100 so I can't comment on how it compares to Kodak Gold 100. Superia-Reala 100, on the other hand, is one of my favorite color print films and it can provide perfect skin tones if printed properly.

 

Superia 800 is infinitely better than Kodak Max 800 in every possible respect, including skin tones.

Hey - I paid for superia in 120 format almost the same price as for any pro film. Didn't do it for a cost cuts. Just to give it a try.

"Real" photographers try things out for themselves rather than

work according to the dogma of some "expert" on the internet.

 

As usual, Igor, solid work.

Thanks Mike, one more try superia 100 at 200 asa this time.<div></div>

I used Superia for most of my shots for the last 3 years, ISO100 and ISO400 too, and not only for people but for almost anything. My main problem with it is the lack of consistency, sometimes if really good (look at this one: http://www.photo.net/photo/1287361&size=lg), and sometimes gives awfull colors (lack of saturation and a disgusting shift to the blue-magenta). Then, it's not a film of predictable behaviour, and I'm not using them anymore. Now I use Reala 100, and I'm trying the Portra 400. Let's see.

 

Although that, both are better to Kodak's cheap versions, specially for skin tones, they are not of a good fidelity.

I admit that my last batch of Superia 400 -- to test what people said

was a new emulsion with rounded backing card, but which turned out to

be still coded CH-7 -- was quite good. Skin tones where far smoother

than before. But as Scott and Néstor say, don't expect consistency.

 

Beautiful model and great poses Igor! I'd say your Superia 400 shot

looks fine, but see how the too-high contrast of Superia 100 works

against you, first by creating a white moustache, then by accentuating

skin mottling in front of her elbow.<div></div>

"Hey - I paid for superia in 120 format almost the same price as for any pro film. Didn't do it for a cost cuts. Just to give it a try."

 

===========================

 

Are you saying you used "Superia" in 120 format for these photos? If that's the case I'm pretty sure what you had is actually Reala, or Superia Reala. Different film from the 35mm version of Superia 100. Slightly lower contrast and color saturation with very faithful colors and responds extemely well to competent printing on good quality paper.

Fujicolor Superia 100 is a good "all-around" film if it is processed and printed correctly, and your pictures are a perfect example of this. I use this film on occasions and it has always produced satisfactory results, and when it hasn't, it has been because the prints were not filtered correctly at the lab and/or the paper used was not the adequate. This film sells for $1.69 (Imported) in B&H Photo Video.

Lex: both Superia 100 (CN) and Reala (CS) are available in 120. The former is $1.69 a roll at Adorama, the latter $2.09.

Check out the Fuji site. The curves for superia 100, 200, and 800 looks almost exactly the same. While value differ, they differ by 0.x, definitely not in 2x, 4x, 8x. Wondering if anyone else had noticed this.

 

iso 100:

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/AF3-007E.pdf

 

iso 200:

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/AF3-026E.pdf

 

ISO 800:

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/AF3-068E.PDF

Mo: that's exactly expected. They differ by 1 stop each, which is a 2x factor, i.e. the curves should be shifted horizontally by 0.3 (in log H space).

ah, my bad. log2=.3

 

my bad. Thanks for the reminder.

This is the first I've heard of Superia's inconsistency but I'll admit I was surprised by the results I got from the latest 400 xtra (last time I shot with this it was the older Superia 400 in 2001!) I had a shot of a cartload of apples in which the reds were slightly magenta-- this is straight out of my scanner and may just be the film scanner itself. I've attached one of the other shots, exposed at 320 under pale, wintry sunlight.

 

 

What do you all think of Porta 400 VC and or the NC for street photography, environmental portraits, low light, travel etc?<div></div>

Igor,

 

Your shots look great and Superia doesn't suck. I buy FujiPress by the case (it is Superia).

 

BUT

 

I have shot Fuji Press right next to Portra NC and NPC NPS NPH (same shoot/subject/

lighting) and it looks like cheaper film....and in a way that it is less flattering to the model/

subject.

 

I use the Press Film for birthday parties/double prints to send to grandma kind of

stuff....that doesn't mean that you can't take good photos with it.

 

jmp

Usually for 120 print work I use kodak profoto 100 film which is here still available. Sometimes I push it one stop to get extra contrast. But I must say that superia did a good impression on me. I did NPH as well with that girl in studio and it looks a bit flatter.

And how about when the light gets bad? In my experience, superias have high contrast, poor saturation and scanning superia 100 when I last tried it was a pain. This proved to be a particularly bad combination for available light conditions I usually shoot in. for higher contrast, I prefer Agfa Vista, since it at least has an interesting color palette.

 

One point from my position is that I wish to use the same films across formats, as I mostly shoot C41 in medium format these days. Amateur films don't permit me to do that.

Just to compare kodak profoto 100 at 100asa.<div></div>

Igor, could you post your photo the model shot with NPH? It would be interesting to see the comparison. Thanks.

Here it is NPH 400 at 200 asa.<div></div>

Odd, the Profoto 100 seems less sharp, which is not what I would have

expected. Thanks for the examples, Igor! I prefer NPH due to lower

contrast: the model's neck is visible and her skin is lusciously smooth. Although you were lucky to get a good batch of Superia 400!

The only films that may improve on the smoothness of NPH would be

Reala and Portra 160NC. Portra 400UC (not grainy 400VC) might give

the red sweater more punch.

oh, please, like a BAD shot could be taken of her.

 

Igor, if your happy with the results and she is happy with the results, who gives a flying .... what anyone else says or thinks?

I want to go to Poland.